Several times now, I have heard about disbelieving men torn up because they are not able to baptize their children in the Mormon church.

In one way, I can understand that. It would bother me to watch some other dude baptize my kids. I'm the dad; I sired them; I try to guide them; I protect them; and I would give my life for theirs. By instinct, I want to be the one who performs any special ordinance - or shares any special moment - with my kids.

And that instinct is so strong, that if I had a wife who would never open her mind to the real story behind Joseph Smith's creation of Mormonism, and just needed to keep on believing and attending, I might even keep my mouth shut, just so I could baptize my children. It's possible.

But while I understand and feel all that, there is a parallel experience, seemingly exclusive to Mormonism, which I don't understand or feel at all. It is the habit of some men within the church, who openly declare their unbelief to their bishops and even stake presidents; who do not regularly attend church (or ever attend at all); who drink beer on Sundays watching the football game; and who do absolutely nothing to show fealty to a religion which they have openly expressed doubt about, feeling suddenly "shocked" and "outraged" that, when their child turns eight, the bishop declines to authorize them to perform the ordinance.

Guys: the bottom line is, if you want to baptize your kids in the Mormon church, and you don't believe in Mormonism, you're going to have to live something of a double life. There is no way around that.

This seems to be very obvious, but for whatever reason, it has not been all that obvious to some. At least five times, I have personally known of cases where the guy, fitting just the description I gave above, is shocked by, and falls to pieces over, his bishop's refusal to authorize them to perform an ordinance which - in the bishop's mind - is a sacred ordinance, which should only be performed by someone worthy and righteous.

In other words, when you choose to throw down in front of your bishop, declaring your unbelief and not following Mormon behavioural requirements (tithing, etc.), you're not going to be baptizing your children, or performing any other ordinance. The church doesn't care that you're the dad. It cares about itself, its appearance, and maintaining its integrity (or "integrity", if you prefer).

This topic came up once on a John Dehlin Facebook thread. In it, a couple of guys - open non-believers - were wringing their hands over just how unfair it was that their bishops wouldn't their own kids, since they were the father. I joined the thread, and expressed the same points I expressed above. True, I concluded by encouraging the men to accept the fact that to choose to move away from Mormonism was to choose to not baptize their children in the Mormon church, and that it was time for them to "grow up" and assume the responsibility and consequences of their decisions. But I didn't think anything I said was anything other than common sense, and the truth.

John Dehlin protested my remarks, and other remarks on the thread, on grounds they weren't nice enough. For John, I gathered, the only acceptable response was a kind of mindless empathy (rather than, say, a remark which might help them avoid feeling similarly hurt in the future).

I responded by asking why he believed that "niceness" was always the highest virtue, rather than, say, "telling the truth" or something like that. And...that was the last comment I ever made on a John Dehlin thread, since he thereafter blocked me from ever posting anything again!

Anyway, my two cents is:

If your wife is not a TBM, and you're not either, but you still retain affiliation with the church, and you want to baptize your child, but your bishop won't allow it, *go do your own baptismal service*. Like writing your own marital vows, write up your own baptismal prayer, and go have your own special family ceremony somewhere. It could be a pool, a river or lake, anywhere. Hell, you might even be able to sneak into the church building one night and do it there. Doesn't matter. What matters is that that baptismal ceremony will signal a commitment from your child to honouring the virtues you discuss with him, and enhanced membership, and responsibilities, and status (in the best way), in the tribe that is your own family.

And for my money, your own special baptism will have more integrity than a Mormon baptism; because yours will be heartfelt, and include nothing but your own true hopes for your son or daughter, and won't have anything to do with a religion which isn't true, founded by a guy who just made things up as he went along. And, because it is your own baptism, you can even have Mom help officiate, as opposed to the Mormon church, which relegates moms to only making cupcakes for afterwards.

Amen.

Elder Talmage C. R. Bachman

That's right. I perform my own full immersion baptism every year at Lake Tahoe. You can't beat it.

It's really hard to know what is the conflict in John's life/family and what motivates much of this. I don't think we can judge without knowing. On the other hand, we have every right to decide whether or not to support his efforts with our time/donations based on actions.

In my own situation, I have had two experiences that relate to this.

1) About six months after I went "inactive" for discovering the truth, my son turned 14 and had decided to be ordained to a Teacher. He asked me to do it. I decided to support him, even though I was a closet doubter. I was living in a separate ward (which I had never attended), and his bishop wanted me to get clearance from my bishop in order to perform it. The bishop I'd never met wouldn't give me clearance based solely on the fact that I had never attended. I asked him why attendance was necessary for worthiness. He said it was policy. I asked him how many times J.Christ was recorded to have gone to synagogue instead of out teaching or healing. He recognized it was very few times. I asked him again, what did attendance have to do with being worthy, if the claimed foundation of the church was barely represented as going. It didn't matter, he refused. He didn't want me to tell my son that I blamed the church for not allowing me, but I told him I was definitely explaining the bishop's firm adherence to policy over the family needs. The bishop was not happy. Fast forward four years later, my son has followed my example and is completely out of the church.

2) I took a lot of crap from many exmos last year for the manner in which I garnered "publicity" as managing editor of mormonthink. I understand that some did not like what happened regarding me last year. I understand that some felt it hurt the MT brand. A lot of events happened that were completely out of my control. I may not have reacted well (or to everyone's liking) to them. I don't apologize for anything. I'm not perfect, but neither did I mean harm. I am glad that I have had a chance to be a part of exposing the true beast underlying the church; to have contributed articles and content at MT; to have worked with the editors and founder of MT. I certainly never meant to harm MT. The church's actions against the founder and previous editor were appalling to me. How the events went down don't change the actions of the LDS church--that it did in fact pressure and push previous MT contributors into hurtful positions. When they came after me, they did the same thing, and I decided to show it to the media at a moment when the media was paying attention. Why? Because the church uses disciplinary courts to wedge against intellectuals by pitting their family relationships and membership against their own loyalty to truth in history and doctrine. I (and others) felt that someone needed to show the church that if it does this, sooner or later, it would get burned by these kind of manipulative machinations. Taking advantage of the moment in the way we did may seem to some untoward. But by comparison to the intentional (and perhaps vindictive) pressuring the church has done behind closed doors in bishop and stake offices, we felt we took a higher road than they typically do, while finding a way to make them rethink these kinds of tactics.

Many criticized me and still do, just as John Dehlin's actions have created controversy, but not everyone finds their way out the same or in a path approved by everyone else. If we want unaminity we might as well go back to being drones in the Mormon church. I think as questioning members and ex-mormons, we are strongly individualistic. If not, we probably wouldn't be here.

Jesus Smith

> 2) I took a lot of crap from many exmos last year
> for the manner in which I garnered "publicity" as
> managing editor of mormonthink. I understand that
> some did not like what happened regarding me last
> year. I understand that some felt it hurt the MT
> brand. A lot of events happened that were
> completely out of my control. I may not have
> reacted well (or to everyone's liking) to them. I
> don't apologize for anything. I'm not perfect, but
> neither did I mean harm. I am glad that I have had
> a chance to be a part of exposing the true beast
> underlying the church; to have contributed
> articles and content at MT; to have worked with
> the editors and founder of MT. I certainly never
> meant to harm MT. The church's actions against the
> founder and previous editor were appalling to me.
> How the events went down don't change the actions
> of the LDS church--that it did in fact pressure
> and push previous MT contributors into hurtful
> positions. When they came after me, they did the
> same thing, and I decided to show it to the media
> at a moment when the media was paying attention.
> Why? Because the church uses disciplinary courts
> to wedge against intellectuals by pitting their
> family relationships and membership against their
> own loyalty to truth in history and doctrine. I
> (and others) felt that someone needed to show the
> church that if it does this, sooner or later, it
> would get burned by these kind of manipulative
> machinations. Taking advantage of the moment in
> the way we did may seem to some untoward. But by
> comparison to the intentional (and perhaps
> vindictive) pressuring the church has done behind
> closed doors in bishop and stake offices, we felt
> we took a higher road than they typically do,
> while finding a way to make them rethink these
> kinds of tactics.

Well, as the guy that the church chased out before you, I certainly appreciate your efforts in going public. It sent a message to the church that if they go on witch hunts, they will suffer the consequences. You probably saved several others from facing courts by showing the church what the little guy can do if oppressed. And MT benefitted greatly from the publicity and is getting more traffic and emails of gratitude than ever. Thanks again.

I think you did the absolute best you could in response to the threats of the Mormon church. I don't know the details, but I think you did the right thing in standing up to them. That's what I dislike about John Dehlin's actions - he seems unwilling to take a stand against Mormon leadership. You make a good point, that we certainly don't know all the details, and I'm not inclined to judge John harshly. I just think that from what we do know, I admire your courage and think of you as the better role model.

Double ditto!

Thank you mtfounder & Naomi. :-)

Just before my son turned 8 (early 1986), the bishop stopped by and said (wtte) "We need to get you coming to church again so you can baptize your son. I don't want to force you to do anything, but that's what has to happen."

My reply: "I won't allow you to force me to do anything, Bishop." I was amazed at my own courage - I'd never said anything like that to any bishop in the past.

At any rate, I knew I wouldn't be baptizing my son in the normal way. But I took him with me on a business trip and we stayed in a motel in Southern Utah. We talked about his upcoming baptism, and that I wouldn't be doing it because I was having doubts about the church, and the bishop wouldn't let me do it. He was very disappointed, since all his church friends were having their dads do it.

So later that night, we went swimming in the motel pool. I told him he and I were still father & son, and I still had the priesthood. So I showed him how he was going to be baptized after he turned 8.

So, I DID baptize him, technically. And it was a special time for us.

Later, I did a similar thing for my daughter, even though by then I was positive that the LD$ church was not true.

Doing that was an effective way to be out of the church, and still have a strong father-child bond.

PapaKen

PS - Tal, glad to see you posting again!

Is that the Mormon church requires children to go into a closed room with an older man and explain to them just how "worthy" they are to spend a Saturday morning getting wet in a cold, tiny pool while dressed all in white - and nobody says a word.

But I push one little kid into the swimming pool while stating, "The power of Christ compells you!" And everybody FREAKS out.

Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that the Mormon church requires children to go
> into a closed room with an older man and explain
> to them just how "worthy" they are to spend a
> Saturday morning getting wet in a cold, tiny pool
> while dressed all in white - and nobody says a
> word.
>
> But I push one little kid into the swimming pool
> while stating, "The power of Christ compells you!"
> And everybody FREAKS out.

LOL. Get it on video. We'll put it side-by-side with an LDS baptism video. I think the comparison should provide great humor.

I think Dehlin is being sincere. But I also suspect he's trying to please everyone. If you stand in the middle of the road, you're going to get hit by both directions of traffic. His path is his. However, I don't think people will be able to invoke change by being "nice" IMO.

I think his motive is not to expose the church, but for the people who will inevitably be exposed to the truth, I think Dehlin wants to be there to greet them and help show them how to handle it, in away that doesn't lead to full apostasy. A form of damage control. I personally disagree with this approach, as complete removal from the church became entirely necessary for me and to assist in my recovery, in the same way an alcoholic can't just stop drinking the hard stuff and stick to light beer only (that's how it is for me and is my opinion only).

Jesus Smith, I think the events of last year that you helped set in motion were extremely effective at sending a message. It's things like that that will drive change and increase awareness of the church's modus operandi. Instead, we could just all hold hands and sing kumbaya and thank the church for giving us all such great upbringings. No... the church is exactly NOT what it claims to be, is actively deceiving, taking money on promises of false blessings and should be actively exposed as such.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2013 04:53PM by Mormoney.

Actually, I just remembered that I was the bastard once that had to deny someone being able to perform a baptism. On my mission, I was a branch president. Some guy, nickname Moncho, was living with his future wife (in "fornication"). He was a priesthood holder, she was a non-member. He couldn't take the sacrament because of this. They got married around the same time that I became branch president. She was to get baptised one week after their wedding, and he was planning on baptising her. But I knew because of the whole fornication thing that he might not be "worthy" to perform the baptism as there would be some kind of waiting period to become worthy again. I consulted with the mission president and he told me that I would have to tell him that there was no way he was going to be able to perform the baptism. I had a sit down with him later that night and told him that he wouldn't be able to do it. I told him how bad I felt etc etc, he was so kind and on the surface took the news extremely well. I knew it tore him up inside. His wife was baptised on schedule, but by another member. Fucking cult



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2013 05:08PM by Mormoney.

The issue of honesty resonates with me more than being nice; I tried "nice" as a new exmo but it didn't last because I valued honesty more than putting on a face.

I always liked the idea of renewing marriage vows, for those who were married in the temple then left the morg, but I never thought of creating a personal family-centered baptismal bonding event including virtues, responsibilities and such. What a cool idea.

I now wonder if this had something to do with his decision to do that...

My dad actually joined the church (he was Catholic previously) just so he could be the ones to perform ordinances on us kids. My mom wanted to raise us Mormon and he really had no strong feelings about religion one way or another.

However, when he realized about all the ordinances, he didn't want someone else performing them. So he got baptized and did all the stuff so he could do it.

He recently told me all this and told me that while he doesn't believe and never has, going through the motions doesn't bother him. My dad is an interesting guy to say the least. I could never go through the motions like that and certainly not for 30+ years like he has.

When does Dehlin finish at USU. It seems like he needs to set up practice soon as a Mormon counselor, not surprising he needs to have the appearance of being a Mormon if he wants to practice in Cache Valley?

What is known about the wife swapping that went on during the meet ups that John organized? I've met him a couple of times and felt very uncomfortable, like he was starting his own cult with devoted groupies.

He's a crazy dude. This "interview" was his official eat crow in public. And he toed the line by painting exmos as bitter, angry, unhappy people. The gyrations he goes thru to get to a point where he can be a Mormon can't be diagrammed.

But he'll have a great practice down the line.

From "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker:
"We must learn and then teach our children that niceness does not equal goodness. Niceness is a decision, a strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait. People seeking to control others almost always present the image of a nice person in the beginning. Like rapport-building, charm and the deceptive smile, unsolicited niceness often has a discoverable motive."

Niceness is a terrible measure of a person's true intent or character. Although I still sometimes, out of habit, use the word "nice" synonymously with "kind," there is a distinction in my mind.

To me, kindness is more of a character trait. Sometimes a kindness includes telling the truth, which may not appear at all "nice" if it's something the other person doesn't want to hear. I've also seen too many instances of people being "nice" to someone's face and then trash-talking them the minute they walk away. That's not "nice." It's worrying more that people like you than caring about being a decent person. That person is a vicious gossip, but they sure do seem NICE.

How many times does the news cut to the neighbors of, say, a pedophile who has just been arrested for the disappearance or murder of a neighborhood child, and all the neighbors have to say is, "But he was always so friendly and always waved and always said, 'hi.' I just can't believe such a nice man would do that." Oy!

Too many humans are blinded by niceness.

p.s. Great to see you back on the board, Tal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2013 09:49PM by Surrender Dorothy.

That's yes, in toto speak.

So very true!

The English are so nice
so awfully nice
they are the nicest people in the world.

And what's more, they're very nice about being nice
about your being nice as well!
If you're not nice they soon make you feel it.

Americans and French and Germans and so on
they're all very well
but they're not really nice, you know.
They're not nice in our sense of the word, are they now?

That's why one doesn't have to take them seriously.
We must be nice to them, of course,
of course, naturally.
But it doesn't really matter what you say to them,
they don't really understand
you can just say anything to them:
be nice, you know, just nice
but you must never take them seriously, they wouldn't understand,
just be nice, you know! Oh, fairly nice,
not too nice of course, they take advantage
but nice enough, just nice enough
to let them feel they're not quite as nice as they might be.

--D.H. Lawrence--

Divorce followed my exit from the church.

Of greater concern to me than baptism was the idea that the child would be 'sealed' to a new husband of my former spouse.

I negotiated for my court orders to include a prohibition against any church ordinance without the permission of me as a parent (yes, I know that is also a requirement in the CHI, but plenty of renegade bishops and SPs out there). 'Sealing' is specifically prohibited in the order.

My intention is to provide a copy of the order to each bishop and stake president my spopuse has indicating that any acquiesence on their part to act contrary to the order will be pursued at law against them personally.

It also sets me up to obtain an urgent order if necessary to enforce the terms of the order.

I don't know if I will agree to baptism before a suitable age, but I will be in a better position when the time comes. After Tal's comments, I am thinking about insisting it be in my pool or at the beach. :-) That way my kids will appreciate the novelty whether they stay in or leave eventually and the self-righteous will be sufficiently displaced!

Rod Holder Wrote. After Tal's comments, I am
> thinking about insisting it be in my pool


that's what they did on Big Love - seemed very appropriate and more spiritual and special.

Baptism:

The biggest joke in religion

Who gives a rat's ass if we have been dunked inthenameofjeezuskriistamen?

I baptize myself every morning

I am baptizing myself with the help of Lord Calvert right now...

I am not going out in the snow to do it. I might go out, if I lived in Queensland for something...

As far as the baptism is concerned–When Bill started baptizing his family in his pool on Big Love, it was a distinctive movement away from the church. My take is, although they weren't 'mainstream,' they were committed to the ritual, practices, etc of the church. In other words, it was inconceivable they not be baptized. It was a like a rite of passage or something. They could absent themselves from the lds church, but they were all so indoctrinated they felt something was missing when they dropped the ritual. Finally, they found out it didn't really matter who did it, just as long as they did it. It further 'proved' they didn't need the mainstream church.

I think this is what the men Elder Talmadge describes are encountering...

YMMV... And I may be reading way too much into a TV serial...

"And...that was the last comment I ever made on a John Dehlin thread, since he thereafter blocked me from ever posting anything again!"

That's what *I* was thinking!

Might I suggest that perhaps in many cases, the non-believing, or semi-believing dad might want to baptise his child in order to more than anything, keep up appearances?

My son is not quite 8, but when I first started doubting, I thought I would still have my son baptised when he turned 8, but doubted my ability to attend or be classified as worthy. Just the thought of family and friends knowing I would not do the baptism seemed like it would bring some shame onto myself. Obviously this concerns me no more as we've resigned.

but was never all that active, especially when I was young. Someone else baptized me. My dad confirmed me. It didn't seem to be as big of a deal back then (1960s).

I knew my ex was cheating and had been for YEARS, but I was NOT going to go to the lds church for "counsel" again and I wasn't going to explain anything to extended family, so my ex baptized our twins and he was very "unworthy." Our son considers it not to count so he isn't mormon and our daughter is TBM and accepts it as valid.

As a still-active but unbelieving member, this is my current position: DD turns 8 in September. I have thought of telling my wife I will no longer pay tithing on "my half" of our income. My temple recommend is up for renewal this month. My ONLY concerns about the baptism of my daughter are these: I want to keep some peace in my household, and #2, especially, is that I definitely don't want my daughter to think that I love her any less because I am not baptizing her. That, to me, is the biggest ramification of this whole thing. I could probably get over the "embarrassment" or "shame" of not doing the baptizing (my wife would be MORTIFIED), but I wonder how that would impact my daughter.

Ideal situation? Get us all out and live a happy life. At this point, that is far from a realistic hope. Trust me, it is KILLING me inside.

Hey Dallin

If she's your last one to be baptized, why not just stick it out until you do the baptism and confirmation, then bail?

Or not "bail". I don't think there is any one right path for everyone; and if your wife is really into the church, maybe you can find some middle ground you all can live with.

Just a thought.