- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had a brother-in-law who was classified as “Special”. Jimmy was mentally handicapped at birth. My Father & Mother-in-laws were the definition of True Blue Mormons (TBM).
They did everything to “main stream” Jimmy. Both in school & church.
Through out primary,etc all children are told to prepare for baptism. All children are told that the ordinance is needed for salvation & it’s required to become a member of the Church. Jimmy was no exception. The time came for the interview with the Bishop & he told the family & Jimmy that in his case, Baptism isn’t necessary. I understand the basis for this position: mentally handicapped members of record are considered innocent & there is no need for baptism.
My Father & Mother-in-laws anticipated the decision. It hurt, but they accepted it.
My question is: even if it isn’t needed for salvation, why can’t the ordinance still be performed?
Would it hurt if he were baptised?
I don’t think he ever felt like a member after that.
I know what they (Bishop) would probably say:
1.) If we did the baptism, then we should do the Aaronic ordination?
2.) When he reached 19 yrs, we would send him on a mission?
3.) If he married, we would have temple ceremony?
I’m curious what others think about this topic.
Mike from Milton.
1) If someone is aware enough to want to be baptized, and if there are no “worthiness” issues that would prohibit it, I have no problem whatsoever with that person being baptized. It’s all symbolic anyway; it’s not like there is a literal cleansing at that moment for lots of people (even as there is for others). 2) We teach that up until baptism at the age of eight, the kids who are baptized haven’t been accountable up to that point – at least not in the same sense as converts who are baptized. Thus, really, what’s the difference between the standard eight-year-old baptism and baptism for someone who isn’t accountable after being baptized?
3) We teach of the need to avoid being baptized “unworthily” – and it’s hard to say someone who is not accountable is “unworthy”, in the classic, traditional sense of how that word is used.
4) Baptism, the Priesthood, temple attendance and marriage are very different things, and I don’t want to deny one simply out of concern about the others.
5) I understand, however, the concern that baptizing those who are not considered to be accountable could perpetuate the idea that they NEED to be baptized and, eventually, that they (and, by extension) all people actually are accountable from birth, no matter their capability to understand. I also understand that if one such person is baptized, others who have children in similar situations might feel like their children also should be baptized. Therefore, I understand the desire to maintain a bright line with those who are believed not to be accountable. It can be a can of worms that isn’t worth opening.
Summary:
I would have no problem baptizing someone who wants to be baptized – and if someone understands enough to feel like he isn’t a “real member”, I think he understands enough to be baptized. However, I personally would do it as a clear exception to the general rule – and, if I were the Bishop, I probably would announce the baptism much like if it were a convert baptism and say something very direct, like:
Quote:Billy has come to me and asked to be baptized. After talking with and interviewing him, I believe he understands the purpose of baptism well enough and is fully worthy to be baptized. Therefore, his baptism will occur at such a time. blah, blah, blah I would do it while looking and smiling at Billy most of the time.
However, having said that, I would support a Bishop who felt like he couldn’t make an exception – even though I believe exceptions often are what give real meaning to the rule.
My In-laws fully supported the Bishop in his decision. They understood the policy. It still seemed that they were hurt. We didn’t talk about it much after that.
As I read my words again, it seems that we have a common thread within the church.
I’m refering to the church’s position on homosexuality too. (I’m sure there are others too.)
If you don’t or can’t fit into the image of what “normal” is, you can’t (or won’t) be a “real” member?
Just thinking out loud.
Mike from Milton.
I have seen similar situations where the baptism was performed, simply because the family wanted it and there is no good reason to deny it. Whenever they get a different bishop they may bring it up with a different result, or they could possibly escalate the question if they would like to have the baptism. I have a brother in a similar situation. He developed mentally to the equivalent age of maybe a 10 year old (this is just my personal observation, not sure what his exact diagnosis is). He is in his early thirties with some other issues too, and lives in a group home nearby so he can participate in programs and have some level of independent living. Anyway … I am pretty sure I remember him being baptized. I don’t think he really “progressed” church-wise into anything else like the Aaronic Priesthood. That is probably appropriate for his state of understanding. I think in the end, I agree with Ray. If someone independently can express the desire to be baptized, and understands what that means, then it seems appropriate.
I kind of also like the idea that it isn’t needed for a person who is not really accountable: the atonement covers it. Life is messy and never quite clear sometimes, so I think we just try to do the best we can to make things right, and balance being culturally inclusive vs. the ideas in our religious theology.
I guess I am just trying to say that I understand some of those feelings. We have someone like that in our family too, and just try to do the best we can to love them and also take care of them.
Hmmm. I find the church’s insistence on following the letter of the law lamentable but understandable. I remember the look of uncomprehending unbelief on my bishop’s face when someone suggested that one of my children might be baptized a day or two before their 8th birthday in order to acommodate travel plans of relatives. I’ve heard enough anecdotes to believe that it’s also somewhat hypocritical in that the rules don’t necessarily apply if your position in the church is high enough to warrant an exception. I’m sure it depends on the bishop trying to do what they think is right, although some make wrong calls by lack of experience. Ray said it well, as long as the individual knows what baptism is for and they desire to have it, I don’t know why the church would not allow it. If the person was so severely handicapped that they didn’t even know what was going on and it was just for the ease of mind of parents or family, then it might not be a positive experience.
Baptism wasn’t “necessary” for Christ either, but he was baptized. What’s the difference? That is a very good point. I’ve never thought of it that way. Thank you. (I love this web site.)
Mike from Milton.
I think it depends on his IQ level. Some disabled people clearly do understand at least some right and wrong, others just don’t. Quote:My question is: even if it isn’t needed for salvation, why can’t the ordinance still be performed?
Would it hurt if he were baptised?
There’s no harm in it. I was having a discussion with someone whose daughter is in a similar position.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.