do 8 year olds "decide" to be baptized?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

They would argue it is completely and total choice, just as if a 45 year old investigated the church and considered joining.

Did you read my posts? This is exactly what I said it was NOT like.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

I have no obligation to adopt UD's approach or rationale, although I understand the point he is making.

I'm sorry Creek, but when I speak, the thinking has been done. God won't let me lead you astray. Count on it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm sorry Creek, but when I speak, the thinking has been done. God won't let me lead you astray. Count on it.

Sorry. I will try to do better. It's just that you really messed me up.

[Levin]

Waters finds a quandry where none exists.

Of course my "parenting" will result in my children being baptized when they are eight. But this does not undermine in the slightest the point that 8-year olds are morally mature enough to appreciate repentance, forgiveness, and Christ. And if they are morally mature enough to do that, then their baptism is a decision which they will feel in their souls.

An ignorant child would view baptism by immersion as a bath. I remember distinctly my feelings after my baptism, and those feelings stemmed from what I understood of Christ, sin, and forgiveness.

I've never defined "informed decision" to mean fully cognizant of all possiblities and consequences, and it's silly to think we should not make decisions until we are fully informed. No decision ever is. A child who will feel the spiritual effects of baptism is morally mature enough to decide to be baptized. "Parenting" is preparing the child so that baptism is not a bath, but a spiritual experience.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Adam

The honest orthodox answer and one I agree with and subscribe to. When people try to pretend it is a real choice, they lose credibility.

That's OK, I didn't have any to start with. I like the argument, however. "WHen people disagree with me and pretend to be right, they lose credibility." Well done.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I want to hear Levin, Creekster and Jay argue how this approach really is true free agency and an informed free choice.

It's an interesting answer and definitely is not in line with what I've been arguing is done by many kids at age 8. Let me think about it. My gut feeling is that I disagree, and that I wouldn't force a kid to get baptized that was against it. I do allow my kids to make a lot of decisions for themselves.

P.S. I love someone calling me a hardliner. MW, on religious matters you're a thousand times the hardliner I am.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Adam

The honest orthodox answer and one I agree with and subscribe to. When people try to pretend it is a real choice, they lose credibility.

Several different arguments going on here:

(1) 8-year old baptism is not a choice. Its equivalent is infant baptism.

(2) 8-year old baptism is a "choice," meaning the parents don't take the kids kicking and screaming, but it's as much a choice as going to school. Obedience over agency.

(3) 8-year old baptism is not an "informed decision" b/c the child doesn't know enough about the alternatives or about the church itself. B/c of this, we will cast 8-year old baptism in a negative light, or at least do some battle with it.

(4) 8-year old baptism is a "choice" but the child is not morally mature enough to know what it means, and, b/c baptism is a moral choice, it's not really a choice. I'll cite some academics for this proposition and do battle with the arbitrary line drawing at 8 years.

(5) 8-year old baptism is not an "informed decision," but it doesn't have to be. An 8-year old is morally mature enough to appreciate the spiritual import of the decision, and that is sufficient to make the line drawn at 8 a fine spot.

My position is definitely #5, with a much softened version of #2. The parenting definitely guides the children to baptism, but the decision would have no spiritual effect if there was no agency exercised. Good parenting results in a child who feels ownership over the choice to be baptized.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Levin

Several different arguments going on here:

(1) 8-year old baptism is not a choice. Its equivalent is infant baptism.

(2) 8-year old baptism is a "choice," meaning the parents don't take the kids kicking and screaming, but it's as much a choice as going to school. Obedience over agency.

(3) 8-year old baptism is not an "informed decision" b/c the child doesn't know enough about the alternatives or about the church itself. B/c of this, we will cast 8-year old baptism in a negative light, or at least do some battle with it.

(4) 8-year old baptism is a "choice" but the child is not morally mature enough to know what it means, and, b/c baptism is a moral choice, it's not really a choice. I'll cite some academics for this proposition and do battle with the arbitrary line drawing at 8 years.

(5) 8-year old baptism is not an "informed decision," but it doesn't have to be. An 8-year old is morally mature enough to appreciate the spiritual import of the decision, and that is sufficient to make the line drawn at 8 a fine spot.

My position is definitely #5, with a much softened version of #2. The parenting definitely guides the children to baptism, but the decision would have no spiritual effect if there was no agency exercised. Good parenting results in a child who feels ownership over the choice to be baptized.

If my POV is intended to be represented by #4, it has been misconstrued (albeit, perhaps unintentionally).

My perspective is not about line drawing, but rather about problemitizing baptism to have value as a singular act--as an object, as it were. Baptism as a process--as the first step into a rebirth--is where notions of accountability and the moral value of choosing between good and evil actually enter the picture.

I'm fine with the ritual of baptism occuring at eight years of age, but maturing in Christ is not a one time event and is not sufficiently comprehended by children (or by some adults either). Maturing in Christ means moral development, increased knowledge, commitment through service,--these are inextricable from one another and from moral development (assuming only Christians for the moment). It so happens that Kohlberg's notions shed light on what can be expected in terms of moral understanding and behavior (accountability) at various stages and ages.

An eight-year-old knows enough of what is happening at a baptism to realize that s/he is now a part of a religious organization (and often one shared by family; therein is the child's positive reinforcement to meet expectation), and that there will continue to be expectations with immediate consequences through authority figures. Preparing for baptism is preparation to formalize a child's relationship to an authoritative institution (the Church) and this in and of itself can help give moral perspective. The best argument for "age of accountability" in this sense is that a child has now agreed that s/he has membership in an organization that would govern behavior. The Church is formalized as an authority figure (through providing necessary access to God), and the child is now on official notice that s/he is accountable to it. Of course, the justification of all of this is professed belief in God and agreement with basic Church teachings.

I'm saying the ritual of baptism doesn't demand much of a developed moral sense, but that actual rebirth and maturation in Christ does. Having children agree to baptism, and to probably remembering it, can have retroactive power after someone matures. It can even help them along the path, if one accepts that moral and spiritual development can/are one and the same for Church members. Humorously, the emphasis on the ritual act itself fits right into one of Kohlberg's stages.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

If my POV is intended to be represented by #4, it has been misconstrued (albeit, perhaps unintentionally).

My perspective is not about line drawing, but rather about problemitizing baptism to have value as a singular act--as an object, as it were. Baptism as a process--as the first step into a rebirth--is where notions of accountability and the moral value of choosing between good and evil actually enter the picture.

I'm fine with the ritual of baptism occuring at eight years of age, but maturing in Christ is not a one time event and is not sufficiently comprehended by children (or by some adults either). Maturing in Christ means moral development, increased knowledge, commitment through service,--these are inextricable from one another and from moral development (assuming only Christians for the moment). It so happens that Kohlberg's notions shed light on what can be expected in terms of moral understanding and behavior (accountability) at various stages and ages.

An eight-year-old knows enough of what is happening at a baptism to realize that s/he is now a part of a religious organization (and often one shared by family; therein is the child's positive reinforcement to meet expectation), and that there will continue to be expectations with immediate consequences through authority figures. Preparing for baptism is preparation to formalize a child's relationship to an authoritative institution (the Church) and this in and of itself can help give moral perspective. The best argument for "age of accountability" in this sense is that a child has now agreed that s/he has membership in an organization that would govern behavior. The Church is formalized as an authority figure (through providing necessary access to God), and the child is now on official notice that s/he is accountable to it. Of course, the justification of all of this is professed belief in God and agreement with basic Church teachings.

I disagree with the emphasis on church membership here. Baptism is not about church membership, IMO, but about sin, forgiveness, and Christ.

The Church comes in by defining what it means to follow Christ, which baptism is a promise to do. Too often, though, the focus is then on the WofW and other such regulations. To not drink is to follow Christ.

I'd root "following Christ" more in the Sermon on the Mount, and in that situation, your "Church as an authority figure" disolves somewhat. What the Church then becomes is an association of brothers and sisters, a human laboratory, in which to apply the Sermon.

[cougarobgon]

I am the father of 10, seven of which have reached the age of accountability and have been baptized. They were all taught the gospel in my home and went to primary where they were taught the simple basic principles of the Gospel. From the very beginning we taught them that when they turned eight y/o dad was going to baptize them and weeks leading up to their baptism date we took time in FHE to discuss the principle of baptism. We never discussed whether or not they had a choice to be baptized. Their understanding all along was they they were going to be baptized at the age of eight.

Did they make an informed decision? I believe that my children made an informed decision based on their level of understanding and reasoning. A level that is quite different than my experience at the age of 16. How would I have reacted if my eight y/o child did not want to be baptized? I don't know and I don't think I'll ever face that situation. But, I would hope that I would allow my child to make that choice and then continue to teach them until they had a desire to be baptized.

Although my kids were taught the same lessons at home and went to primary, some were very well versed in the principles of the gospel, while others were not. I found that to be typical through out a six year period that I conducted baptismal interviews. Not one child was ever denied the privilege of being baptized due to their lack of knowledge. I had confidence that their parents would see to it that Gospel would continue to be taught in the home and that the child would be brought to Church. When a child came from a home where parents not "very active" I made the point of speaking with the parents the parents as well and explained the importance of them helping the children understand and keep the baptismal covenants.The interviews I conducted with the children were very simple, yet I believe very meaningful. I took the time to discuss the meaning of faith, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. We discussed the Plan of Salvation, and I explained to them the role of a bishop so I could begin establish a relationship with them as I would be interviewing them several years down the road during their teenage years.

Sometimes we understimate how much an eight year old understands. I recall an experience I had with an eight y/o girl. The week following her baptismal interview, she wanted to talk to me again. During our first interview she had understood the principle of repentance and the need of confessing one's sins prior to baptism. The week after the baptismal interview she remembered a sin she felt needed to be confessed and did not want to be baptized until she spoke with me again. I don't recall the sin but it was a kid thing...I believe that this eight year old made an informed decision to be baptized, according to her level of understanding and reasoning.

Nothing new, just my two cents.

-Cougarobgon