A few weeks ago an active brother in our ward was told he could not perform the baptism of his friend because his temple recommend was not current! I thought to myself, WTF is going on here?

I was invited to stand in the circle for a baby of the wife's brother in a neighboring ward. When I heard that temple recommend holders only could participate, I showed up, but didn't go up front. And believe it or not the bishop actually checked TR's right there on the stand in front of everyone. Control, control, control...and guilt and embarrassment.

Now that is just unbelievable and mainstream Christians would be appalled. I sure am. This is the type of stuff they don't know anything about. It is shockingly rude, arrogant and all to show people that you must do this and this to be really "special" in their eyes. So Christlike.

I was invited by my BIL to stand in the circle for the blessing of his daughter just two weeks ago, and I DID!

Then again, he probably doesn't know that I'm no longer a believer, and nobody else in his ward knew anything about me. But the other family members were probably lifting a metaphorical eyebrow.

A few weeks ago I predicted on here that to increase revenue, one of the things the Morg would do would be to move baby blessings and baptisms to the temple, to force members to be current tithe payers, just like attending a wedding.

This looks like an intervening step. Pay if you want to participate. The next step will be to move these to the temple so you have to pay to watch.

I actually might not mind that. It would get me out of going to all those boring baby blessings and baptisms.

+1

in your own children's rites of passage, you better do whatever you are told.

Heresy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in your own children's rites of passage, you
> better do whatever you are told.


Well, technically, first you have to be a man. Then you can worry about jumping through the hoops.

Women don't have the right equipment to participate in their own children's rites of passage.

I am a nevermo and I hear the women sit in the pew. How terrible. That would never fly in a mainstream Christian church....What an insult....another example of the farce the Mormons are trying-to become mainstream. Won't happen.

16.1 General Policies
16.1.1 Worthiness to participate in an ordinance or blessing
Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to service in a Church calling.
....
16.2 Naming and Blessing Children
16.2.1 General Guidelines
"Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name" (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.
<end quote>

From the CHI part 2, online, it says only a priesthood holder when talking about baptisms:
http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#203



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2011 10:01PM by Heresy.

So the TR applies to baptisms, but not to baby blessings, and that asshat bishop was out of line, and in the worst possible way. I can not believe he was checking recommends ON THE STAND IN FRONT OF EVERYONE. My ex, TBM though he might be, would have ripped him a new one for that.

Once again, you see the difference from state to state, ward to ward. Particularly, since being 'inspired by the spirit'is a belief.
People make up rule and interpret them as they 'feel' is correct.

I suspect the bishop in my local ward is extremely liberal,when on member who is mentally ill cam in to SM in pj's, I said, bless her heart, she made it to church. I didn't know the Bishop was right behind me, but he chuckled and said, exactly sister.

I still think the who organisation is bat sh*t crazy, but some of the people I have met have been good examples and truly wonderful people.

There are others though....

I baptized my little brother when I was 16, and I didn't even know that my parents' underwear was sacred yet!

The cult wants the members' money.

When will TBMs wise up?

Surprised at this policy...but is bouncing the baby up and down by the men in the blessing circle still an accepted part of the ritual?

This is a new policy is it not? A new way to extort money from any member who doesn't want to be humiliated in front of family. What a shameful tactic.

WHAT????

According to church doctrine, any priest can baptize....and most priests are NOT endowed.

I think that this new false doctrine is so obviously false that it will cause an uproar!

When are people going to start revolting about these dictatorial and horrifying pronouncements from the committees that run this church?

The membership does not read the Bom, D&C,PGP, or the Bible. They blindly follow the leadership and do what the brethern tell them.

Sheep.

wasn't allowed to baptize his daughter because he wasn't a full-tithe payer. At least that bishop was honest about what was important to them instead of hiding it in the "temple recommend" excuse.

As others have said, individual experiences will vary according [the inspiration of] the local bishop, et al.