Originally posted by bluegoose
View Post
This seems like it would have been a great issue to raise beyond the level of the temple president.
What a crappy situation. It's a shame the Church couldn't figure out a solution that would take the individual situation into account.
Meh. Too much of this thing goes on.
We have a family with a high functioning down syndrome son. He turned 8 recently. The kid goes to 1st grade, the whole bit. The "leaders" would not consent to him being baptized.
In fact, as I found out the story, I got sick to my stomach. It turns out that the way the Bishop decided if he should be baptized or not was to include the kids' primary teachers and primary presidency in on the decision WITHOUT asking the family if it was okay to do so. So, he essentially made this situation public knowledge and a group decision.
The answer was that he didn't need to be baptized. The dad's line of thinking is, "well, neither did Jesus. He did it to comply with the law of God." I think their disillusionment is partly social in that they don't get to have that "rite of passage" moment that other families have. However, I think, talking to them, that it goes well beyond that. They really do want to show the Lord that they are raising this child right. They believe that baptism by immersion is a step, even if it's not for remission of sins...based on the fact that Jesus was baptized.
The family is deeply hurt. Dad is taking a break from church activity. All could have been avoided by letting this innocent child take a dip. Where is the harm in that?
Comment