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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

NS's story would be countered by stories of bishops who guided fathers back into full fellowship and activity, through the process of preparing to baptize their children.

We know how NS's story turns out. We just don't know if there was a connection between that and the baptism. I think we do know that the baptism was not an event that springboarded NS into faith and activity.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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

I see. To be clear, I haven't taken a position on either choice. I think the right or wrong of it is blurry enough to me from the vantage point of my laptop screen that I can't say, though I understand the arguments for and against.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

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?

My expressions are typed for effect and using emotive language to elicit a response. In person, I carefully calculate the language depending upon the response I desire.

A tantrum requires an emotive display in person. IF you took offense, then apologies. This forum is a place where I can play out things I wouldn't do in person unless the forum dictated it.

I suppose you were very cool as a cucumber when the bishop declined your initial response. In ecclesiastical matters I usually defer or go by way of soft reminder, as that's the way it works in Church bureaucracy. Anything else brands you as a trouble maker. I have no desire to be so branded, but rather would prefer to be unnoticed at all. The less leaders notice me, the better my day goes.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

NS's story would be countered by stories of bishops who guided fathers back into full fellowship and activity, through the process of preparing to baptize their children.

We know how NS's story turns out. We just don't know if there was a connection between that and the baptism. I think we do know that the baptism was not an event that springboarded NS into faith and activity.

Laban's encounter with Nephi didn't spring him into activity either but maybe that wasn't the point. I'm just saying that the end result for NS may not be the right analysis, though it could be. Hard to see, the future is. Cloudy is the dark side.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Laban's encounter with Nephi didn't spring him into activity either but maybe that wasn't the point. I'm just saying that the end result for NS may not be the right analysis, though it could be. Hard to see, the future is. Cloudy is the dark side.

Not only is the future hard to see, it can be hard to explain when it comes. I have seen people who think they were given inspired advice and later that advice caused a problem. They then spend countless energy trying to figure out how the problem that came because of the advice was a good thing. In order to continue believing in the powers of the advice giver they have to figure out why the advice giver was right. I guess their faith in the gospel hinges on the Bishop, SP or other leader always giving revealed advice.

I just figure they were wrong and I appreciated them giving me the best advice they could.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Not only is the future hard to see, it can be hard to explain when it comes. I have seen people who think they were given inspired advice and later that advice caused a problem. They then spend countless energy trying to figure out how the problem that came because of the advice was a good thing. In order to continue believing in the powers of the advice giver they have to figure out why the advice giver was right. I guess their faith in the gospel hinges on the Bishop, SP or other leader always giving revealed advice.

I just figure they were wrong and I appreciated them giving me the best advice they could.

I certainly agree. I know I can't figure these things out. I have witnessed many faith promoting experiences where things work out just right. I have seen them in my life. I have had other experiences, and see other situations, where the thing that spirit confirmed as the right choice was a dissaster.

My approach is to use the brain I was given to make the best choices I can and then ask that they not blow up on me. When I am blessed I am thankful. When things go wrong I post-mortem my decision just long enough to see if there is a lesson then move on to the next thing.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

When my son turned 8 about 5 years ago, my bishop wasn't going to let me baptize him. I didn't pay tithing, didn't have a temple recommend, and only went to church sporadically. He told me I couldn't baptize my son unless I started paying tithing. I was pissed, and we got into it. I told him that I was a priesthood holder and that I'd baptize my son if I wanted to. I told him I wasn't going to pay him off just so I could baptize my son, and asked him whether all he cared about was the money (I think I used the term money-grubbing). He finally relented and let me baptize my son, but I haven't been to Church since. What pissed me off was that the bishop didn't care that I was semi-active or that I didn't have a temple recommend -- all he cared about was the tithing. I saw the Church in a very ugly light that day.

Pay the price.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Pay the price.

Do you even have children? Do you know what a Nobel Prize is?

Haven't you got some public toilets to finish cleaning someplace?

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Do you even have children? Do you know what a Nobel Prize is?

Haven't you got some public toilets to finish cleaning someplace?

Yes. Yes.

No.

In that order.

[jay santos]

NS's story is an interesting one.

I doubt NS would take offense to this, and sorry NS if you do, my perception is you don't give a shiz about what LDS think of your situation...

But I see this as a perfect example of crossing the "grace line". If you want to be in the covenant you can. You keep picking yourself up after falling and mustering up enough faith to keep coming back and never quit. That's being in the covenant.

A member who says to a bishop, I haven't paid my tithing (or lived Wow or law of chastity or whatever) due to my lack of faith or lack of effort or other human frailty, but I believe in Christ and I want to follow him and I want to be able to baptize my son. At that point a bishop lays out a relatively simple plan for the member to demonstrate a degree of faithfullness and allows the member to baptize his son. Even if the member fails to achieve the plan, if he's efforting and doesn't give up, then he's OK.

There has to be some degree of faith or humility or desire to be part of the covenant. If the member like NS basically says F U I don't care enough to make even a small attempt to pay tithing (or WoW, etc.), then that person is out of the covenant and the person unwilling to receive God's grace.

So even being the grace extremist, I wouldn't have allowed NS to baptize his son in that case (though I also imagine NS is exaggerating a bit the details).