Do LDS bishops allow a man to baptize his kids... - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

non sequitur · 11-22-2007, 01:31 AM

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.

MikeWaters · 11-22-2007, 02:34 AM

Quote:

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 wasn't going to pay him off 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.

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

BYU71 · 11-22-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

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 wasn't going to pay him off 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.

If you choose to be inactive, that is your choice. Your reasoning isn't very compelling though. What was ugly about the church, that Bishops decisions or they themselves aren't perfect?

MikeWaters · 11-22-2007, 02:42 AM

I went to a church once where a plate was passed around in a very public way, with the expectation that you PAY the preacher, right then and there while he was preaching and while all eyes were on you. Needless to say I saw that church in a very ugly light that day. All they cared about was money.

Indy Coug · 11-22-2007, 02:46 AM

Quote:

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.

You just found the "out" you'd been looking for for a long time.

Archaea · 11-22-2007, 02:47 AM

I am surprised the Bishop allowed you to baptize your son and he should not have. Whether you'd still be active or disaffected is unknown, but if you have some rules which a member doesn't even make any effort to follow, if they won't be enforced why bother? You bullied your way through and then act surprised?

If you don't want to play by the rules, that's fine. But to expect full privileges, such as the right to baptize, without abiding by any of the rules is nonsensical.

I once let my driver's license lapse and forgot to pay my car insurance. A cop stopped me and wouldn't let me drive. I told him I would pay the bill if he let me go to the DMV to renew my license and to call my agent. He grudgingly let me do so, only after I promised to pay. Man, cops are only about money. What a jerk.

non sequitur · 11-22-2007, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you don't want to play by the rules, that's fine. But to expect full privileges, such as the right to baptize, without abiding by any of the rules is nonsensical.

I don't expect full privileges. It's not like I wanted to go to the temple. I wanted to baptize my son because that's what he wanted. Baptism is just a symbolic act. My worthiness or lack thereof has no bearing on the legitimacy of it. It's not like the baptism isn't going to take if I'm not paying tithing. And it wasn't like I was failing to abide by the rules. There is no rule that says you have to pay tithing to baptize someone. The bishop made a decision on his own that he was going to jack me up for tithing. I called him on it and he relented because he knew he was wrong.

non sequitur · 11-22-2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You just found the "out" you'd been looking for for a long time.

I wasn't looking for an out. I spent half my life looking for an "in", a reason to participate in a Church that I knew wasn't true. I left the Church because I knew that "in" didn't exist.

Archaea · 11-22-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't expect full privileges. It's not like I wanted to go to the temple. I wanted to baptize my son because that's what he wanted. Baptism is just a symbolic act. My worthiness or lack thereof has no bearing on the legitimacy of it. It's not like the baptism isn't going to take if I'm not paying tithing. And it wasn't like I was failing to abide by the rules. There is no rule that says you have to pay tithing to baptize someone. The bishop made a decision on his own that he was going to jack me up for tithing. I called him on it and he relented because he knew he was wrong.

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.

UtahDan · 11-22-2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't expect full privileges. It's not like I wanted to go to the temple. I wanted to baptize my son because that's what he wanted. Baptism is just a symbolic act. My worthiness or lack thereof has no bearing on the legitimacy of it. It's not like the baptism isn't going to take if I'm not paying tithing. And it wasn't like I was failing to abide by the rules. There is no rule that says you have to pay tithing to baptize someone. The bishop made a decision on his own that he was going to jack me up for tithing. I called him on it and he relented because he knew he was wrong.

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. I think that reaction is coming from the belief that you think you are entitled to do something that you really ought not be and that in the end you didn't appreciate the favor you got.

I'll leave that analysis aside and just say it has some merit. I think the only thing that should have controlled your Bishop's thought process (and apparently it did) was what was best for your boy. Whether you "got it" then or "get it" now, regardless of what your attitude is and regardless of whether the Bishop's call there resulted in some success story where you reactive....to me that is all beside the point.

I'm also a little surprised to see some people whom I'm accoustomed to seeing defend the actions of leaders to the death jump right on and say this bishop made the wrong decision. He is the man entitled to the revelation, I will start with the presumption that knowing non-seq. and his son and having that stewrdship over them both that he got it right. 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.

11-22-2007, 01:31 AM	#11
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	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. __________________ ...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan Last edited by non sequitur; 11-22-2007 at 02:39 AM.

11-22-2007, 02:47 AM	#16
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I am surprised the Bishop allowed you to baptize your son and he should not have. Whether you'd still be active or disaffected is unknown, but if you have some rules which a member doesn't even make any effort to follow, if they won't be enforced why bother? You bullied your way through and then act surprised? If you don't want to play by the rules, that's fine. But to expect full privileges, such as the right to baptize, without abiding by any of the rules is nonsensical. I once let my driver's license lapse and forgot to pay my car insurance. A cop stopped me and wouldn't let me drive. I told him I would pay the bill if he let me go to the DMV to renew my license and to call my agent. He grudgingly let me do so, only after I promised to pay. Man, cops are only about money. What a jerk. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-22-2007, 02:42 AM	#14
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I went to a church once where a plate was passed around in a very public way, with the expectation that you PAY the preacher, right then and there while he was preaching and while all eyes were on you. Needless to say I saw that church in a very ugly light that day. All they cared about was money.